By Matt Underwood US appeals court lets Trump send troops to Portland, and the immediate reaction is, well, it’s pretty clear that people are not thrilled. The general sentiment seems to be a mixture of disbelief, anger, and a deep sense of betrayal. The fact that the US appeals court sided with the former president and essentially greenlit the deployment of troops to Portland – a move widely seen as politically motivated – has ignited a firestorm of criticism. The very idea of the military being deployed against American citizens is, for many, a stark violation of democratic principles.
The central issue appears to be the judicial deference granted to the president’s decision. The court’s willingness to give “great deference” to the former president’s judgment, as opposed to independently assessing the facts and circumstances, is seen as a significant overreach. It’s essentially perceived as the court rubber-stamping a potentially illegal and certainly controversial action. This point is particularly highlighted when the court seems to be prioritizing the president’s view of reality over an objective assessment of the situation. Some are even questioning the very role of the court if it isn’t meant to determine the facts of the case.
The composition of the court, with judges appointed by the former president, has also come under intense scrutiny. It’s hard to ignore that the judges who supported this decision were appointed by the very individual seeking to deploy the troops. This fact raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and the erosion of judicial independence. The implication, for many, is that the court is politically compromised, making unbiased interpretations of the law impossible. The idea of these judges being potentially impeached and removed at this point has been floated.
There’s a palpable sense of historical moment here. The events unfolding are seen as something that future generations will look back on with disbelief, labeling this era as profoundly “fucked up.” The potential consequences of allowing such an action to proceed are clearly a source of deep concern. There are questions about the money spent, and the true motives behind the deployment, leading many to believe that it is nothing more than a political stunt.
The dissent from Judge Graber is particularly poignant, capturing the frustration and urgency felt by those who oppose the decision. The closing sentiment urging colleagues to act swiftly and to retain faith in the judicial system highlights the seriousness of the situation. The call to action is clear, and the appeal for people to retain faith even in the face of what seems like an assault on democratic principles is striking.
The tone shifts rapidly to one of outright outrage and a call to resistance. The deployment of troops to Portland is seen as an act of treason, a step towards authoritarianism, and a direct threat to civil liberties. This is not simply a matter of disagreement with a political decision; it’s a fundamental challenge to the very foundation of the United States. The responses include expressions of anger at the court system, and strong statements about the need to fight back against the perceived threat to democracy. Some feel that the National Guard might have a more active role in the situation, either actively resisting or providing cover for the civilians.
One of the more frustrating aspects of the situation seems to be the lack of consistency in legal interpretations. The question of whether the courts are capable of interpreting the law consistently the same way for every situation is one of concern. Adding to the frustration is the fact that a president’s decisions should be given such a high level of deference when their views seem entirely disconnected from reality.
Finally, the discussion delves into the larger context of the current political climate, and the perceived corruption and weakness of the judicial system. The call to action is clear, with a direct appeal for people to defend their rights. There is a sense of urgency, with a clear understanding that the time to act is now. The feeling that “we have a right and a duty” to resist, and the reference to historical examples of fighting for freedom, underscores the depth of concern and the willingness of many to defend their rights.